In this essay, the author furthers the argument that critical commentary on the Rajput and Muslim miniatures of India has focused on a rather odd use of labels and categories, perhaps to an even greater extent than has been the case with much of the rest of the criticism of the art of South Asia. She first examines the use of the term "mannerist" with respect to this work, noting that Mannerism as a term from a school of the Renaissance has a decided set of connotations attached to it, and one that cannot easily be overlooked or ignored. She notes that it is particularly instructive to attempt to come to grips with the humanist thought that preceded the development of the Renaissance itself, a type of thought that is almost completely lacking in the Indian worldview. She then notes the use of a term that might be thought to be oppositional, "naturalist," in criticism of the Kangra school, and again argues that the term has a meaning from which it is not easily detached. Finally, she comments on the ready availability of formalist lines of criticism for those attempting to deal with Asian work, since Clive Bell, Roger Fry, and others not only cited the applicability of their theories to the work of Asia, and, indeed, Africa, but were noted as having done so by others, including the American commentator Alain Locke. (Contains 10 notes.)